My #1 marker for the designation "imbecile": the person conflates NECESSARY & SUFFICIENT:
"Math is necessary to undrstnd probability" they counter w/"math doesn't always work".
"Experience is necessary to undrstnd finance" they use counterexamples of old pple who made mistakes.
"Math is necessary to undrstnd probability" they counter w/"math doesn't always work".
"Experience is necessary to undrstnd finance" they use counterexamples of old pple who made mistakes.
2) E.g. blockchain arguments"it's a NEW technology, denying it is like denying the early internet". They mistake NEW for a sufficient condition.
I walked out of a barber shop in Beirut who wanted to use the electric th. in place of scissors when he said "we use cars not horses"
I walked out of a barber shop in Beirut who wanted to use the electric th. in place of scissors when he said "we use cars not horses"
3) The conflation of necessary & sufficient is more technically called: affirming the consequent.
[Notes for #FooledbyRandomness]
Almost all comments on my Twitter aphorisms usually make that mistake.
[Notes for #FooledbyRandomness]
Almost all comments on my Twitter aphorisms usually make that mistake.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
